Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00151

Identification and quantification of thymosin beta4 in human saliva and tears.

Cross-sectional study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (other)

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • Identification and quantification of thymosin beta4 in human saliva and tears.primary · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2007-06-28 · PMID 17600285 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Human volunteers in three age groups (15-20, 25-35 and over 50 years) who gave tear samples (n = 30) and saliva samples (n = 60). People using topical ophthalmic or oral medication, or with ocular or oral surgery in the past 6 months, were excluded.
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Non-U.S. government research support (PubMed publication type); funder not named

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

    What the authors reported

    As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

    Adverse events

    None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors report the first detection of endogenous Tβ4 in human tears and saliva, with levels varying by age. They suggest it may act as an endogenous healing agent and could potentially be used to treat ocular surface and oral disorders.

    Peptide Library’s assessment

    An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

    Limitations

    • inappropriate endpoint: The study only measured endogenous Tβ4 levels in body fluids. No compound was administered and no clinical or safety outcomes were assessed.
    • no control group: Descriptive comparison across age groups only. There was no intervention and no comparator group.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available. Methods, statistics and full results cannot be checked.
    • small or imprecise: Small samples of about 10-20 per age group, with n = 30 for tears and n = 60 for saliva.

    No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • author_conclusion: PMID 17600285, abstract (last three sentences) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 17600285, abstract (sentences 3-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • funding: PMID 17600285, citation (publication types) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 17600285, abstract (sentences 5-6) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 17600285, abstract (sentences 5-6) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

    These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).